I Am not buying one, but it is interesting. I remember the DCS 620, DCS 460 (all over $30,000 a body) and the DCS 760, not to mention the DSLR MF backs and bodies. To me the important point is that Canon is claming to capture and output stills from video at 4000X

BCADULTART wrote: 4K at 24 FPS, that makes me wonder about stills? Also it preforms
well at 200,000 ISO?

No relation to as in the original 1D?

It's a 1Dx with new firm ware- the stills will be the same as a 1Dx.
Video generally does not impress me. video uses thousands of frames to deliver/tell a story I'm interested just using 1

ETA:

BCADULTART wrote: I Am not buying one, but it is interesting. I remember the DCS 620, DCS 460 (all over $30,000 a body) and the DCS 760, not to mention the DSLR MF backs and bodies. To me the important point is that Canon is claming to capture and output stills from video at 4000X

It's a 1Dx with new firm ware- the stills will be the same as a 1Dx.
Video generally does not impress me. video uses thousands of frames to deliver/tell a story I'm interested just using 1

I don't think thay you understand my post?

I've seen this body and it is good, better than I would like it to be. I've been around for more than a few years, done the major magazines, gallerys, etc. Shooting 4k video at 24fps is interesting and I'm trying to figure out how it all fits into the future of "still photography."

ETA:
Ah, you are talking stills from video... the ultimate spray and pray

You do not understand what I am talking about.

All of you with no experience as a "Photgrapher" should pay attention, In my opinion. Leica M's are great units, I've used and Loved them over the years, M2's to M6's, Blads etc. I've seen a video from the Canon 1D C and it
is very good, I've also seen still images from video from the
1D C and they are excellent. All I was saying is that this is a bit frighting to me, as someone who shot for Time, Life, Newsweek, etc. for the last 30 years.

for 12k there are plenty of video cameras that dont have the "NIKON F MOTORDRIVE ON STEROIDS" form factor. I don't see how this is a game changer for anyone other than tendinopathy specialists (who may be ironically, the ones who can best afford one).

BCADULTART wrote: ETA:
Ah, you are talking stills from video... the ultimate spray and pray

You do not understand what I am talking about.

All of you with no experience as a "Photgrapher" should pay attention, In my opinion. Leica M's are great units, I've used and Loved them over the years, M2's to M6's, Blads etc. I've seen a video from the Canon 1D C and it
is very good, I've also seen still images from video from the
1D C and they are excellent. All I was saying is that this is a bit frighting to me, as someone who shot for Time, Life, Newsweek, etc. for the last 30 years.

If it has the same limitation of 25minute clips that the 5Dii does and no powered zoom lenses then it is not much of a game changer. The RED ONE is now $4,000, RED SCARLET is $7,950, and RED EPIC is $19,000. WHy would I spend $12,000 on a hopped up DSLR?

Because I am a "Still Photographer" I do not 'Spray and Pray' The idea that a 35mm body would alow a photographer to just press the button and record at 24 FPS and then ediors would select the frame does bother me.

Long Island Studios wrote: If it has the same limitation of 25minute clips that the 5Dii does and no powered zoom lenses then it is not much of a game changer. The RED ONE is now $4,000, RED SCARLET is $7,950, and RED EPIC is $19,000. WHy would I spend $12,000 on a hopped up DSLR?

Id like to see someone follow down the mountain even with carefully positioned shoot platforms with one of these on a rig. Red is the game changer here.

Is this concept new to you? People have been touting stills from 4k for a while, prophesying that we will learn to live in world of continuous lighting. I have read editorials in photography magazines saying cameras like the Red are still photographers' future and we must love crisp light.

Canon is attempting to break into Hollywood. They have set up an office but as good as they are, there are companies who are way ahead in the Hollywood HD camera world and they don't care about stills. So, be afraid of the monster that was unleashed some time ago.

BCADULTART wrote: Because I am a "Still Photographer" I do not 'Spray and Pray' The idea that a 35mm body would alow a photographer to just press the button and record at 24 FPS and then ediors would select the frame does bother me.

That hardly seems economical but maybe there is some poor sob somewhere in the world willing to sift down thousands images to find the keepers for cheap but I don't see that change coming anytime soon.

That hardly seems economical but maybe there is some poor sob somewhere in the world willing to sift down thousands images to find the keepers for cheap but I don't see that change coming anytime soon.

to be fair, its not thousands. you get to a point in the stream and you want something its just scrolling back and forth through a few dozen. it's 24FPS not 24mil. I have not done it with 4k but an image is an image. you want to find......that one. no...that one...no...back two.yes...thats it.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote: to be fair, its not thousands. you get to a point in the stream and you want something its just scrolling back and forth through a few dozen. it's 24FPS not 24mil. I have not done it with 4k but an image is an image. you want to find......that one. no...that one...no...back two.yes...thats it.

Yes, but that's not just one per shoot... think catalog work - 2-4 sec at 24f/sec X 3 to 8 poses X 20 to 200 items...

Yes, but that's not just one per shoot... think catalog work - 2-4 sec at 24f/sec X 3 to 8 poses X 20 to 200 items...

not to mention x 4GB per minute!

It's bad enough shooting high megapixel stills and having to transfer then sort through several gigs of images. I don't even want to think about having to sort through 100 to 500 GB (or more!) of video.

I only shoot video as a hobby but i would love to be able to shoot 4k to allow me to "zoom in" on detail in the footage (within a 1920 x 1080 workspace) when my optical zoom runs out, eg like filming galloping horses. I would also love to be able to pull stills from video as I can't film and shoot stills at the same time... Its still a bit out of my budget though at the moment!

Yes, but that's not just one per shoot... think catalog work - 2-4 sec at 24f/sec X 3 to 8 poses X 20 to 200 items...

unless your catalog is Russian Brides you wouldnt shoot in video in the first place. Grabbing a still frame from a point in a video stream implies you have some sort of action going on. Now I'm the first to admit my catalog work is limited (2 contracts) but nothing moved when I was shooting it. Think of the video I linked to. You want to grab a frame in the middle of one of those crazy ass jumps. right....there.
if my catalog work was jumping around I would be worried.

It's bad enough shooting high megapixel stills and having to transfer then sort through several gigs of images. I don't even want to think about having to sort through 100 to 500 GB (or more!) of video.

As I said before that's the wrong way to think about it. its not 500 GB. its an x minute video stream. you stop when you get to a good bit and scroll back and forth a few frames to find the best of the lot. it's just better quality now.

BCADULTART wrote: Because I am a "Still Photographer" I do not 'Spray and Pray' The idea that a 35mm body would alow a photographer to just press the button and record at 24 FPS and then ediors would select the frame does bother me.

That's absurd. Who would shoot that way when you can use a Red and shoot at 96fps?

Photography is not about the technical, it's about translating your clients message or story. Anyone can make a good photo technically. If all you have is technical skill you're a camera operator, not a photographer.

If you have the story telling and communication ability, you don't have to worry because that's a rare thing.

You heard about the Red that's got a 20 stop dynamic range now right? Soon it will be at the point where you can decide the exposure after the fact.

Shutter Priority and Aperture Priority are pretty much obsolete now. If you have a usable ISO of 200k, then you can select your settings in manual and use ISO as a brightness control - or auto ISO in place of Av/Tv. Except for the sad fact that camera manufacturers haven't really caught on to this yet - or the need to have a low powered fill when shooting at 12,800 and higher.

As I said before that's the wrong way to think about it. its not 500 GB. its an x minute video stream. you stop when you get to a good bit and scroll back and forth a few frames to find the best of the lot. it's just better quality now.

Well you still have to transfer 500GB of data and you still have to store it until you select out the stills. So you can't ignore the massive amount of data required.

As for your statement that you just look at it as x min of video I disagree with that too. I can look through stills from a 2 hour shoot in maybe a couple of minutes, just depends on how many shots I took. But with 2 hours of video you have to sit through it or fast forward and risk missing something.

For an 8 hour commercial shoot you'd need 2TB of storage. That also might slow your shoot down as you wait for cards to be transferred so you can reuse them.

Well you still have to transfer 500GB of data and you still have to store it until you select out the stills. So you can't ignore the massive amount of data required.

As for your statement that you just look at it as x min of video I disagree with that too. I can look through stills from a 2 hour shoot in maybe a couple of minutes, just depends on how many shots I took. But with 2 hours of video you have to sit through it or fast forward and risk missing something.

For an 8 hour commercial shoot you'd need 2TB of storage. That also might slow your shoot down as you wait for cards to be transferred so you can reuse them.

Practical? Not to me.

sorry you cant use the GB argument. you have to transfer anyways. if your contract is to shoot video you shoot video. how many GB or TB you use is how many you use. Dont want to transfer that much data? Dont shoot high quality digital video. shoot film or whatever. But if you are shooting digital video you will be transferring a lot of data. If your contract is to shoot stills you shoot stills. the GB or TB required are part of the game. as for looking through 2 hours of video, if your mandate is to do a 2 hour video then thats what it is and someone is going to be looking through it anyway. so again...you have to be there anyways and all you do is hit pause and scroll.

Canon had some success with the 5DII being adopted by amateur and professional videographers. This success caused the company to litterally loose focus and start to develop products like these - packed full of features useless to actual photographers.

Canon is no longer chasing/competing with Nikon. Canon is now competing with RED. I know many hard core Canon shooters who have given up on them ever producing a wonderful new photographic tool.